Pish most people don't have a clue as to what they are even looking at much less how to critique what they perceive to either be wrong or off. what's that old saying about having nothing nice to say, keep your yap shut?
Hope ya'll understand criticism is always a negative. It stems from a negative POV. The minute you start criticizing you're being negative. That said, doesn't bother me in the least to have someone point out faults, it's the nature of humans to see the negative. I mean you guys would never want me to voice criticism about the artists out there as i would tear most of them down in a way that would make ya'll really look at what you now collect in not so a favorable way. Like i said way back don't allow this topic to get under the skins of artists and collectors, it could get ugly and card values could be harmed.

This is a bunch of dorks pretending to be important. (Yes, that includes me.)

This is not the real world, and it makes no difference at all.

I hope this is more of your mindless drivel...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

So many artists are so sensitive that they cannot be open to any form of critique. They get all jealous when another artist sells for more money. They lash out on the message boards every chance they get, because they are in so much pain from not having their work celebrated.

... because

I find it difficult to believe that sketch card artists get upset when second hand dealers can't make money off of their cards, or not as much as they do off of other artist's cards.

I find very little of what has been directed towards the artist in this thread as constructive criticism.

None of the artists that commented in this thread have used it as an opportunity to "lash out" because they weren't being celebrated.

See, I take your critique about my opinions and I learn from them. Thank you.

I could provide a detailed study of successful sketch cards vs. unsuccessful sketch cards. I could (and I have, even here on this site, probably in this thread) identify the qualities that make the most valuable sketch cards better than others. I don't want to do that, unfortunately, because the artists in this industry tend to be too sensitive and their feelings get hurt very easily.

If you want artists to provide their point of view on the forums, you need to praise them without any hint of critique.

You say I am "attacking them", but what you really mean is I am not praising them. That tends to be the perspective when it comes to these subjects. The only opinions that are deemed acceptable are the strictly positive ones.

That is not honest. That will keep the industry stuck in the same state. Unless we can talk about improvements without being accused of attack, then we are nothing more than a circle jerk.

I am giving constructive criticism, whether you recognize it or not. Here are my suggestions to the artists:

1. Stop being so defensive. If you like your art, don't let anyone bring you down. If you want to improve, be open minded about how you could improve.

2. Study the artists who create cards that sell for more money and see if you can identify the characteristics in their work that are most successful. Ask collectors like fboothiii and FeedtheLion on Scoundrel what they look for in a card, and why they picked the cards they did to spend hundreds of dollars on. Study art appreciation sources and see if you can apply academic concepts to your work in sketch cards.

3. Start a thread here or on Scoundrel and call a truce, asking for honest constructive criticism. Remember #1 on this list, and let collectors tell you honestly what they think without accusing them of attacking.

4. Enjoy yourself. Do your art for fun, not for anything else. This could make you a better artist, and it will definitely make you a happier person.

There. Those are constructive, and they can help anyone having problems with these issues. I would love to do a detailed study of the most successful artists in this industry, but I don't want to ruffle any more feathers than I already have. I started my blog at sketchcardsaloon.com in an attempt to showcase the best work in this genre, so that is one place to see which cards are most successful in my opinion. I see that site as a gallery, with me as the curator. It has been big fun, although I was much more active there in the past than I have been lately.

Good luck to all.

There is some really good advice above, but as usual people don't want to get better.

Okay, I get it. I'm out.

Have fun, be happy. Everyone is just perfect exactly as they are, and every card is a masterpiece beyond improvement.

Pish most people don't have a clue as to what they are even looking at much less how to critique what they perceive to either be wrong or off. what's that old saying about having nothing nice to say, keep your yap shut?
Hope ya'll understand criticism is always a negative. It stems from a negative POV. The minute you start criticizing you're being negative.

I'm sorry but i have to disagree with most of this post. There is an arrogant former baseball player named Tracy Jones who, when totally having his butt handed to him in a debate on the radio, always falls back on "I played the game and you didn't, and therefore I know my stuff and you don't." Now I don't profess to be an expert in the world of art, but I darn well know that a Glebe sketch is more pleasing to my eye than that sketch the OP posted at the top of the thread. My opinion is not worthless because I am not an artist, so the first sentence of your post just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't really agree with the statement that all criticism is negative. If you are mentoring someone and they are great at 75% of what they do, well what is wrong with pointing out to them an area in which they could improve and thus better themselves as a person? (Not talking artists here really, but in general.) I do agree that a non-artist like myself trying to tell an artist specifically how he/she can improve is beyond silly, and I would never make an attempt to do something like that. But a movie critic can critique a movie without being "negative" and an editor can clean up bad writing or misspellings without being a bad guy and an art teacher should be able to offer constructive advice to an art student without being perceived as negative.

Pish most people don't have a clue as to what they are even looking at much less how to critique what they perceive to either be wrong or off. what's that old saying about having nothing nice to say, keep your yap shut?Hope ya'll understand criticism is always a negative. It stems from a negative POV. The minute you start criticizing you're being negative. That said, doesn't bother me in the least to have someone point out faults, it's the nature of humans to see the negative. I mean you guys would never want me to voice criticism about the artists out there as i would tear most of them down in a way that would make ya'll really look at what you now collect in not so a favorable way. Like i said way back don't allow this topic to get under the skins of artists and collectors, it could get ugly and card values could be harmed.

Only if you have nothing but negative people around you.

There can be those whose criticism guides and improves, gives art or music students focus, and crafting that is otherwise missing due to the lack of experience. Is that negative?

There can be those whose criticism guides and improves, gives art or music students focus, and crafting that is otherwise missing due to the lack of experience. Is that negative?

That's not criticism, that's guidance through trial and error. Pointing out faults is criticizing. The word has a meaning. Not saying anyone needs to be positive about anything but just understand the minute you start making comments about how something doesn't look good, it's negative. There is no this artists work doesn't look as good as this artists work. You can say this artists work doesn't look as good as their earlier work. But if you compare a Cook to a Glebe or an Acar, that's just foolish. Art is individual expression. You may like and go with what this or that artists is doing but never compare.

I'm sorry but i have to disagree with most of this post. There is an arrogant former baseball player named Tracy Jones who, when totally having his butt handed to him in a debate on the radio, always falls back on "I played the game and you didn't, and therefore I know my stuff and you don't." Now I don't profess to be an expert in the world of art, but I darn well know that a Glebe sketch is more pleasing to my eye than that sketch the OP posted at the top of the thread. My opinion is not worthless because I am not an artist, so the first sentence of your post just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't really agree with the statement that all criticism is negative. If you are mentoring someone and they are great at 75% of what they do, well what is wrong with pointing out to them an area in which they could improve and thus better themselves as a person? (Not talking artists here really, but in general.) I do agree that a non-artist like myself trying to tell an artist specifically how he/she can improve is beyond silly, and I would never make an attempt to do something like that. But a movie critic can critique a movie without being "negative" and an editor can clean up bad writing or misspellings without being a bad guy and an art teacher should be able to offer constructive advice to an art student without being perceived as negative.

Words mean things, criticism is negative, just is. Guiding a person is not criticizing. Film critics are negative for the most part and should be ignored in total. One persons opinion is not fact. when you are being nagged is that constructive or just plain ole badgering and annoying? Criticizing is the same as being nagged because it's repeated way too much.
To me if you don't like something that's cool no one has to like something just because.
Rian is just a badgering annoying negative power tripping idiot we mostly ignore.

I mean you guys would never want me to voice criticism about the artists out there as i would tear most of them down in a way that would make ya'll really look at what you now collect in not so a favorable way.

That's not criticism, that's guidance through trial and error. Pointing out faults is criticizing. The word has a meaning. Not saying anyone needs to be positive about anything but just understand the minute you start making comments about how something doesn't look good, it's negative. There is no this artists work doesn't look as good as this artists work. You can say this artists work doesn't look as good as their earlier work. But if you compare a Cook to a Glebe or an Acar, that's just foolish. Art is individual expression. You may like and go with what this or that artists is doing but never compare.

Incorrect. Criticism has no negative or positive value. You assign value based on societal belief of what the word means (it has a negative connotation).
There is POSITIVE criticism. And that, is what art and music teachers practice.

Addressing common sentiment on “dud pulls” from another angle, if an artist (rather than a company) owes a breaker a flippable card – what does that breaker (rather than the company) owe the artist? Collectors, too, in this theoretical question. You know the artists don’t get paid well, you aren’t buying the majority’s APs to support them specifically, what IS the return directly from you to them?

I truly believe this is why there is such turnover in artists. Because the whole arrangement can easily feel very parasitic to those of us who can’t make the A List. Sure, artists should draw for their love of the craft (gag, but that’s another subject entirely) but musicians play for the love and still aren’t looked down on for “feeding off the crowd” at concerts. Simple feedback can skew the relationship toward symbiotic. …But every time I bring up that suggestion everyone gets bent. My feeling is, if you think it’s too much time and effort to comment, praise, or even show your respect for artists with nothing tangible in it for you… I’ve got a few sketch cards you can finish for me instead?
*off soapbox*"

You make some good points. . . A lot of them seem to be directed at flippers, which makes sense, but don't forget collectors aren't flippers. . .

What is the return from collectors to the artist -- first a job, second opportunity. Without collectors, and without sketch cards far fewer artists would be drawing these great licenses, and far fewer artists would be able to make money with their art. We can squabble over the amount of money, or whatever, but collectors are removed from that. . . I don't go to a restaurant and find out how much the chef makes. . .

I don't like the gambling analogy, when it is used it just shows that people don't understand collectors, which is fine -- not everyone does. . . It's pointless to argue that point, either you 'get it' or you don't.

If artists appreciate sketch cards as a job, and as an opportunity they should be careful not to 'kill' that golden goose. . . As sketch cards stop bringing value to a product they will be included less frequently, or not at all. I'm certain that sketch cards will remain in the hobby, but wouldn't be surprised to see their numbers dwindle in coming sets. . . sure the small press guys will still do the fantastic job they've been doing. . . but the bigger sets will likely eventually turn to other avenues entirely, or significantly reduce the number of sketches just to keep the value up. . . From a resume standpoint for an artist it doesn't get much stronger than being able to write 'Star Wars,' 'Lord of the Rings,' or 'Marvel' . . . that is what collectors are giving the artists.

As far as praising artist's work. . . you are right, it would be nice if people did that more frequently. . . that said . . . it's kinda like that chef at the restaurant -- I don't run off and praise the chef unless the food is outstanding. . . if it meets my expectations then . . . well it meets my expectations. If the food is lousy I'll complain. . . and that's the case in a lot of jobs. . .

I could provide a detailed study of successful sketch cards vs. unsuccessful sketch cards. I could (and I have, even here on this site, probably in this thread) identify the qualities that make the most valuable sketch cards better than others. I don't want to do that, unfortunately, because the artists in this industry tend to be too sensitive and their feelings get hurt very easily.

Your study won't mean a thing as we are talking about art and as such it appeals to personal taste. The qualities that you think make one card valuable will not be the same for someone else. It's your OPINION no more no less.

Quote:

If you want artists to provide their point of view on the forums, you need to praise them without any hint of critique.

There have been plenty of artists who have decided to share their thoughts in this thread without needing any praise or whatever you think we want. This is just another idiotic comment based on your warped assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

every card is a masterpiece beyond improvement.

After all you've said....its just a ridiculous comment. One of the annoying reasons why I usually ignore you.

an honest critique does not mean someone is talking down to you or are out to treat you as if you are some arrogant high school art student drop out. that's just ridiculous. i think it can be a good thing to get an outside opinion on your work, if you're afraid of hearing this, pick another profession.

stop thinking that everyone is out to get you the second someone doesn't share your view.

i believe there are artist and fans in this thread that have a one way thought process. they seem to be unable to look at a situation objectively, and for that, i can't take their opinion seriously.

i don't think rian was attacking this new artist. he disagreed and explained why he disagreed. i think this new artists' post was rather pretentious to be honest. people need to stop being so damn defensive, and that goes for fans too. i can understand points from both sides myself, but I'll stick with blaming the company attitude. i don't particularly care for self entitled artist, or lazy ones either.

as negative as this post may seem, i believe it's pretty reasonble. it's my view, not necessarily yours and i'm fine with that.

Your study won't mean a thing as we are talking about art and as such it appeals to personal taste. The qualities that you think make one card valuable will not be the same for someone else. It's your OPINION no more no less.

That is simply not true. There are academic principles for evaluating art that have been established by scholars around the world that can easily be used to identify successful work.

I side with Lak Lim as I sometimes find sketch cards that are simply pencil or monocolor marker strike a chord with me (for example I like how Diego Jourdan Pereira portrays the villains in his black marker sketches but it's pretty evident on eBay that not a lot of people share my enjoyment).

After reading your guide to criticism, I tried to apply it to this piece of artwork. Then this one. Then this one. The this one. Then this one. Then this one. I could literally go on all day with some of the absurdist/minimalist art I've seen at museums and actually on display. And if I use your art criticism guide to constructively criticize it, I get nowhere.

This is the mystery of art to me and I just take it to mean that art is much more subjective than people think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

Using that kind of academic study can help any artist improve, and can help collectors understand different levels of quality.

I think this should read:

Quote:

Using that kind of academic study can help any artist conform to the norm and maximize profit, and can help flippers understand how to buy/sell based on popular opinion.

The thing that guide seemed to lack was the fact that if you enjoy art that no one else does then the technical evaluation doesn't matter. Art has long been about breaking the norms and allowing the artist to express themselves while any kind of guide regresses into "There is one true way" for art criticism.

The thing that guide seemed to lack was the fact that if you enjoy art that no one else does then the technical evaluation doesn't matter. Art has long been about breaking the norms and allowing the artist to express themselves while any kind of guide regresses into "There is one true way" for art criticism.

Your post is well written, and makes valid points.

The academic principles of art, however, withstand the common idea that we cannot evaluate art at all because of personal taste.

All art can be evaluated in terms of color, line, shape, contrast, balance, proportion, and emphasis.

Yes, personal taste will determine whether the viewer likes or dislikes the artwork. But the academic principles can still be identified whether the viewer likes the piece or not. And, if the artist is open to improvement, the academic principles can be used for self-evaluation and progress.

The academic principles of art, however, withstand the common idea that we cannot evaluate art at all because of personal taste.

I think the crux of our disagreement lies in the fact that this art is created for collectors and fans -- not advancing the "academic principles of art." While some of the sketches meet your standards of universal acclaim, I find it unproductive and petty to expect that of all the sketches. As a collector that has bought over a hundred sketches but hasn't sold a single sketch yet, I guess I just have to agree to disagree with you. I have yet to bust open a box (~25 boxes) with a sketch that makes me unhappy enough to even think of destroying it or doing something that childish. Sure, if you think every sketch should be above a certain academic limit of art you are free to express such an opinion. I fundamentally do not.

I appreciate all the artists and their variety of styles that contribute to these series and even more so I appreciate the artists that take the time to interact with us on these forums.

If you have a specific level of your own perceived quality that you expect from a sealed product, why on Earth would you leave that up to chance? Just go to your favorite artist and purchase what you want! It's fine to have specific rigid tastes. Destroying something when you don't get some preconceived minimum of the "academic principles of art" is not fine.

Art criticism is only useful insofar as you are able to identify what the intent was of the artist and how successfully they were able to achieve that result.

And the elements of criticism are difficult to define because they can change based on the work.

For example, how can you apply the same principles to the color fields of Mark Rothko and the works of Rembrandt? Or the early works of Matisse versus his cut-outs? You can't--their purposes were completely different.

Also, and maybe I will piss off both sides here, but I think it's a little much to apply fine art criticism standards to sketch cards. How many weeks/months/years were some fine art pieces worked on versus the minutes/hours/days for these sketch cards? It's a little unfair to do that, IMO.

At the end of the day, we're talking about sketches of comic book, TV show, and movie characters. These aren't intended to change the world or end up in museums.

And really all of this is moot to the point of this thread. We have the artist admitting himself that this was not his best effort, that he was being hurried into finishing his quota, that he felt these were "freebies" for collectors, and that he felt he met the minimum requirements that the card company requires (which he apparently did).

This thing has gone so far off the rails, so let me bring it back:

1. Regardless of the excuses and rationalizations from the artists regarding the original sketch, the fact is the vast majority of sketches that we pull from packs demonstrate more effort given by the artist that this one. This sketch stands out because most of them are much better. The artist himself admits this was not his best effort--this is not in dispute.

2. Some of the artists feel like they will do the minimum effort required due to the small amount they are paid for their work. Other artists see these as advertisements for their abilities in order to get commission work. I really cannot fault either position and it's up to the card companies to raise the minimum accepted if they do not feel the quality is where it needs to be and to pay more to get more time spent on the cards. Given how successful these releases are, I'd say that's unlikely.

3. I think the collectors here need to get over ourselves in terms of believing we can tell artists why we think they should improve and expect them to listen to that. There is a great tool to see what collectors like and don't like called eBay. If the artists care about that kind of thing, they can see the results and adjust. Or if they don't care, they can ignore it.

4. None of this changes the main point here, which is regardless of the reasons why you got a crappy sketch, a collector or flipper does not just have to be happy they got anything at all. We paid for the sketch and if it's a subpar sketch, we are perfectly within our rights and role to say "I did not get a quality sketch here and I'm not happy about it." Doesn't mean everyone has to agree that the opinion was correct. What I find interesting in this case is almost no one disputes that the sketch here is of poor quality. So in these cases where nearly all of us would say, "This one should not have been packed out," why can't we point that out?

__________________
I no longer own any sports cards in case you find one of my old selling threads. Sorry.

Last edited by monkeymcgee; 02-03-2013 at 12:04 PM.
Reason: some typos

Using that kind of academic study can help any artist improve, and can help collectors understand different levels of quality.

You have a point but so does Lak.

There's only so much "different levels of quality" is a factor. At some point many pieces are very similar. And these pieces can be $100s of dollars in difference market value. So, like Lak said, it's personal opinion. I can think of at least one artist (I won't name here - definitely not the place) that I would NEVER pay more than $50-$100 for but their work usually goes for $150-$800.

Please realize (especially the last few pages) many of you are getting into multiple levels of "semantics arguments"... it's really annoying for those trying to read the thread too :P .

Being more on topic. Sub-par sketches are mostly a function of the manufacturer. I remember when I first got into collecting I purposely avoided Topps AND Upper Deck because of opening some real stinkers. Later on I came to realize I was missing some hidden beauties so would just deal with the "hit or miss." However, some products such as pretty much all the Star Wars products I still avoid because of the quality to price ratio.

And if you want to erase the sketch, all the power to you. But if it's not a pack-pulled sketch, it's a PSC which matters to many collectors.

Thanks to cujo for finally getting my posting rights and to aggie for the comments… I probably wouldn’t keep bothering if you hadn’t posted.
--

I find it rather frustrating that with all that I wrote, the thing that spun off is something I didn’t say.

I did not say that artists should not be criticized. Merely that you should take the time to compliment art you like, as well.

And though in other forums and completely different discussions I’ve said I’m not fond of critiques (or critiquing), I don’t know why that’s supposed to mean I can’t take them. In fact, I have never received a critique on my art from the card community that I can recall.

Pretentious as it might read, I guess, my point with the second post was that Rian has this habit of making assumptions and running with them. One being that he has a background that makes him uniquely qualified to berate artists – because what he does is not constructive criticism, even by the definitions he’s posted himself. His background in academic art is not unique, though. Honestly, I don’t even know that Rian knows what I draw since I’ve never been on a Marvel set. We’ve posted in the same threads before, but I’ve never spoken to him before now… it would actually be hard to since I have him blocked on Scoundrel.

People in general seem to take me wrong in the way that I post, as well. I was taught not to speak for other people and so I try to only use myself as an example. It’s not intended as railing at the inequities of the universe, just the facts as I see them in the only experience I have to speak from. I’m not an A List artist, oh well. I have no aspirations toward comics, having already turned down opportunities years before trying cards. Other artists tend to rate my work much higher than collectors (hence my participation on most artist-run premium sets but low collectability in them). What I draw from this is that my work is technically sound (enough) but lacks the “it” factor. That’s an observation, not a complaint, and that’s where my post was coming from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

Ask collectors like fboothiii and FeedtheLion on Scoundrel what they look for in a card, and why they picked the cards they did to spend hundreds of dollars on..

Forgive the brief need to snark, but should I ask FeedtheLion before or after I complete his AP? This is the kind of thing I mean about making assumptions.

Speaking to critiques…
“This card sucks”, “This card was a huge disappointment” and “Pencil sketches shouldn’t be accepted into sets” aren’t constructive criticism. The first two don’t address the issues needing improvement, the third has nothing any artist not handing in pencil sketches already can take away.

Here, I'll give myself an actual artistic critique –
“I understand that the white lines you tend toward around your characters are shortcuts to help define objects where proper gradients would muddy on the small surface, but sometimes they completely flatten the depth of the field and negate the shading and shaping you did manage.”

That’s technically negative, but there’s thought and reason behind it and identifies an area for improvement. People who aren't me can apply this to their art, as well, if they use the white outline technique or are thinking about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by webjon

What is the return from collectors to the artist -- first a job, second opportunity. (…)
From a resume standpoint for an artist it doesn't get much stronger than being able to write 'Star Wars,' 'Lord of the Rings,' or 'Marvel' . . . that is what collectors are giving the artists.

As far as praising artist's work. . . you are right, it would be nice if people did that more frequently. . . that said . . . it's kinda like that chef at the restaurant -- I don't run off and praise the chef unless the food is outstanding. . . if it meets my expectations then . . . well it meets my expectations. If the food is lousy I'll complain. . . and that's the case in a lot of jobs. . .

Well, as I said, for the vast majority there isn’t a lot of opportunity provided for card artists. And if we’re being honest with our resumes, we absolutely are not writing those things on it. The best you can do is “Lucasfilm properties for Topps” or “Marvel properties for Rittenhouse.” Not quite the same ring to it.

If we’re going to use your chef analogy, though, I’d say that the chef came to your table to ask how it was and you’re ignoring he’s there… unless it’s to say “horrible.” :P There isn’t a single artist on these forums, FB groups, etc. posting OR lurking that isn’t there trying to see what people think. We're coming to you (I can't say that without picturing Ryan Reynolds on SNL). And as much as everyone is entitled to their opinion, when all that’s posted is negative, that’s what we take away. That’s my main point with making the effort to find someone you like and say so.

Thanks to cujo for finally getting my posting rights and to aggie for the comments… I probably wouldn’t keep bothering if you hadn’t posted.
--

I find it rather frustrating that with all that I wrote, the thing that spun off is something I didn’t say.

I did not say that artists should not be criticized. Merely that you should take the time to compliment art you like, as well.

And though in other forums and completely different discussions I’ve said I’m not fond of critiques (or critiquing), I don’t know why that’s supposed to mean I can’t take them. In fact, I have never received a critique on my art from the card community that I can recall.

Pretentious as it might read, I guess, my point with the second post was that Rian has this habit of making assumptions and running with them. One being that he has a background that makes him uniquely qualified to berate artists – because what he does is not constructive criticism, even by the definitions he’s posted himself. His background in academic art is not unique, though. Honestly, I don’t even know that Rian knows what I draw since I’ve never been on a Marvel set. We’ve posted in the same threads before, but I’ve never spoken to him before now… it would actually be hard to since I have him blocked on Scoundrel.

People in general seem to take me wrong in the way that I post, as well. I was taught not to speak for other people and so I try to only use myself as an example. It’s not intended as railing at the inequities of the universe, just the facts as I see them in the only experience I have to speak from. I’m not an A List artist, oh well. I have no aspirations toward comics, having already turned down opportunities years before trying cards. Other artists tend to rate my work much higher than collectors (hence my participation on most artist-run premium sets but low collectability in them). What I draw from this is that my work is technically sound (enough) but lacks the “it” factor. That’s an observation, not a complaint, and that’s where my post was coming from.

Forgive the brief need to snark, but should I ask FeedtheLion before or after I complete his AP? This is the kind of thing I mean about making assumptions.

Speaking to critiques…
“This card sucks”, “This card was a huge disappointment” and “Pencil sketches shouldn’t be accepted into sets” aren’t constructive criticism. The first two don’t address the issues needing improvement, the third has nothing any artist not handing in pencil sketches already can take away.

Here, I'll give myself an actual artistic critique –
“I understand that the white lines you tend toward around your characters are shortcuts to help define objects where proper gradients would muddy on the small surface, but sometimes they completely flatten the depth of the field and negate the shading and shaping you did manage.”

That’s technically negative, but there’s thought and reason behind it and identifies an area for improvement. People who aren't me can apply this to their art, as well, if they use the white outline technique or are thinking about it.

Well, as I said, for the vast majority there isn’t a lot of opportunity provided for card artists. And if we’re being honest with our resumes, we absolutely are not writing those things on it. The best you can do is “Lucasfilm properties for Topps” or “Marvel properties for Rittenhouse.” Not quite the same ring to it.

If we’re going to use your chef analogy, though, I’d say that the chef came to your table to ask how it was and you’re ignoring he’s there… unless it’s to say “horrible.” :P There isn’t a single artist on these forums, FB groups, etc. posting OR lurking that isn’t there trying to see what people think. We're coming to you (I can't say that without picturing Ryan Reynolds on SNL). And as much as everyone is entitled to their opinion, when all that’s posted is negative, that’s what we take away. That’s my main point with making the effort to find someone you like and say so.

As a collector (yes, I sell some cards that I've decided not to keep usually at a loss, but I buy as a collector), I really do try to promote the artists who I enjoy and I also vote with my dollars by buying directly from them when possible (either in the form of commissions or buying works that have already been completed). I've even found a couple of artists that not many people here had followed and explained why I think they are doing interesting work.

However, I don't feel it's my place to tell artists how to improve. I guess I find it hard to believe that artists would take my opinion seriously, but maybe I'm wrong about that. I know what I like and what I don't like and just because I don't like something doesn't make it bad art.

In the case of the sketch that started this thread, the issue to me is not one of style or technique, but one of being complete. To me (and others, I think), it was obviously one done quickly and under more normal circumstances would serve as the foundation for what I'm sure would be a very nice piece.

For those of us who didn't know already, I think this thread has done a good job of explaining why the artist went that route. And he explained that himself a little later as well. I'm not unsympathetic to those reasons, but as someone spending my money to get that sketch I believe I have the right to say, "That's not good value for my money."

And maybe the fault is that we've been spoiled with most artists doing amazing work for the pittance they get for their sketches. I can't agree with how the card companies compensate the artists, so I do understand that point of view as well.

__________________
I no longer own any sports cards in case you find one of my old selling threads. Sorry.